Skip to main content

Full text of "Professor Friedrich Delitzsch and the Name הוהי"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


Vol. II. JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1883. Nos. 5 and 6. 


Bt John P. Petees, Ph. D., 

Leipzig, Germany. 

The criticisms on Prof. Fr. Delitzseh's recent work, Wo lag das 
Parodies ? which I have seen generally busy themselves chiefly with 
the discussion of the site of the garden of Eden, as though that were the 
really important part of the book. I think I may venture to say that in 
the mind of the author this part was of secondary importance, intended 
to afford an opportunity for his valuable notes and excursuses. These 
latter, moreover, occupy 234 of the total 329 pages. Note 50 proposes 
an entirely new explanation of the name Jahve or Jehovah. It reads as 
follows : 

Although without necessary connection with the subject in hand a 
few words about the divine name tY\tV may here be added. In the con 
sideration of the origin of this name of God, as also of its signification 
and pronunciation, it seems to me that exactly the opposite way must be 
pursued to that hitherto adopted. We must set out, not from a quadrilit 
eral HliT as a derivative from niH, " be, " and advance from that to IfT, PP, 
&c, as supposed contractions, but rather, in the opposite way, we must 
set out from 1iT, JT> ♦, as the oldest original forms of the name, in the ex- 
planation of the quadriliteral fHiT. I comprehend my views regarding 
HliT in the following Theses : 

130 The Hebrew Student. 

A. in* (IT. *) the popular name of God, with * as the most essen- 
tial element. 

The name of God which was and remained in constant, perhaps exclu- 
sive, use in the mouth of the Hebrew people was in*, H*, and at the same 
time there always remained a consciousness of *, i, as the most essential 
element of the name. 

1. in* the popular name of God. a) That in the mouth of the 
Hebrew people nW never was nor became the customary name of God, 
but that the popular name always was and remained m*, is abundantly 
proved by the fact that there ib not a single Hebrew proper name show- 
ing the quadriliteral nin*, in composition, although, it is exactly in proper 
names that the Hebrew knows this method of composition ; cf. 
p"|¥~>:? t ?P, plipjnit |>P*"p' &c.— Why does no such form as 
nin , "*5 l ?D occur? b) The name of the king of Hamath conquered by 
Sargon, ilu Ja-u-bi-i'-di (Khors. 33. Lay. 33. 8, for which Sarg. 25 has 
I-lu-u-bi-i'-di, with a change of the name for God similar to that found in 
the Hebrew royal names D'p^K and D*p*in*) may serve as a proof. For 
allowing (which is, however, very questionable) that this name, as little 
as the name of the son of a king of Hamath, DTI*, which occurs 
II S. chap. in. 10, can serve as a proof that the national God of the Hebrews 
was originally the God of other nations also, and that with Schrader 
(KAT. 3 f.) and Baudissin (Studien zur semistischenReligionsgeschichte, 
i, p. 222 f.) we must admit that the people of Hamath "adopted the God 
of the Jews into their circle of divinities," yet they would scarcely have 
adopted him under the name used by the Hebrews in proper names only, 
but rather as his name was in full and when standing by itself. Or is it 
to be supposed that at the same time with the worship of the God of the 
Hebrews the people of Hamath also appropriated the Hebrew treatment 
of the name in proper names ? 

2. The contractions show that the consciousness of the language 
recognized in the name in* no derivative from mn "be," no contraction 
from mn*, but regarded *, * as the most essential element of the name, 
in* and 'm* (V), as, for example, in in*pfn (Assyr. Hazakiau), Dn'IH*. 
Dm*, could, in themselves considered, be contracted from nin*. like *n* 
from n*n\ but the contraction to TV or n*. for example n*ptn, or, with 
assimilation of the *, to n , for example, nflflQ, Ez. x. 33 T\T)T\]2 
(TVryR'Q), is harder to explain, while the contraction to simple * (i, ja), for 
example ON^O, in.* (Assyr. Ja'ua) would be a piece of grammatical 

Peof. Fkiedk. Delitzsch and the Name mif'- 131 

■violence unheard of in the province of the Semitic languages if fT! - ! were 
the root and * a mere formative prefix. It is as impossible as that J1JPT 
or "OJ should be volatilized into 1 or J. 

B. fTliT, pronunciation, meaning and origin of the quadriliteral. 

1il\ the original name of*God, which always remained the one in 
use among the people was remodeled into MliT. "the existent." This 
latter is a product of reflection, a "religions artificial word," and conse- 
quently always remained rather limited to the members of the theocracy, 
instead of winning entrance among the common people. 

1. Pronunciation of the quadriliteral. 

a) Direct tradition with regard to the pronunciation of the quadrilit- 
eral HliT there is not. From fear of a misuse of the true name of the 
covenant God, it early came to be regarded as a nomen ineffahile (the 
txx constantly translate o nvpioi). That the pronunciation Jehovah, 
in common use since about 1520, is incorrect it is not necessary to prove 
further. Diodorus Siculus with his law, and Clemens Alexandrinus 
with his Iaov both speak for the form 1 ( T. Only one thing is certain, 
that the name was spoken with an a-vowel in the first syllable. This is 
shown by the forms Iff', TV, H*. from which there could not have been 

* T T T 

too wide a departure in the changed form. But how was it with the 
final sound ? 

b) We read in Exodus in. 13 and 14: "And Moses said unto 
Elohim, Behold when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say 
onto them, The God of my fathers hath sent me unto you; and they 
shall say to me, What is his name ? what shall I say unto them ? and 
Elohim said unto Moses iTHK "IB'K TV Hit ■ and he said, Thus shalt thou 
say unto the children of Israel, Eliyeh (n\"tt<) hath sent me unto you." 
This locus classious, Ex. in. 14, shows that the name 1PP was brought 

into connection with (Til, originally mH "be," and regarded as a noun 
or verb form from this root. On this account, and in consideration of 
the form iTHKi HIIT appears to be the most probable pronunciation of 
the quadriliteral, a pronunciation which is further supported by the Iafie 
of Theodoret and Epiphanius. 

2. Meaning of the name Tf\TV_- 

Ex. m. 14 proves incontestably that the meaning connected with 
this name was " he who exists, " "he who is." The causative [hiphil] 
explanation as "the existence giver," or "the realizer," which is adopted 
by Schrader (Art. Jahve, in Schenkel's Bibellexikon), Baudissin (p. 229 

132 The Hebrew Student. 

and elsewhere), Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, p. 153, ff.), and 
others contradicts the explanation vouched for by Hebrew literature 
itself, and does it without need or cause. It is not necessary on linguistic 
grounds. The a of the first syllable does not need to be explained ac- 
cording to the rules of Hebrew etymology (although it does not contra- 
dict even those, cf. pO^IT Ps. lxxiv. 6, and, in case HIIT is a noun with 
the preformative CDlp^T*, P03*, etc.), it results from the original form 
of the name, in*. Such etymologies and interpretations, invented at a 
later date for the explanation of a word, are free in their character, and 
cannot be judged according to the standard of strict grammatical and lex- 
icographical rules of the similar, sometimes ingenious and elevated, but 
linguistically false explanations of XW\k from t^'N, Gen. n. 23, pp from 

{■tip, iv : 1, PU from Dm , v. 27, ^3 from ^3, xi. 9. So in this 

t|t' - -T 7 VT -T 7 

combination with ITU the 1 of HliT remains in any case unexplained, 
for "be" was not in the Hebrew hin, but always nTf, the north Pales- 
tine and late Hebrew forms of ffin resulting from Aramaic influence. 
The new explanation (Schrader's) is, moreover, utterly impossible, for 
the biblical, as well as the past biblical usage knows no Jiiphil of fTfl 

3. Origin of the nW- 

The secondary relation of fYWT to IH* is shown by the fact men- 
tioned in A, I, that TTVV never was the name of God in common use in 
the mouth of the people. This was and remained in*. It is further 
shown by the abbreviations JT and * mentioned in A, n, which are unin- 
telligible in case n")i*T (from nin) was the original, fundamental form of 
the name. Finally it is shown by the meaning "the existent." No 
Semitic divinity was ever originally named from a conception so abstract 
as "the existent" (the ISTabataean proper names compounded with p and 
D'p, discussed in ZDMG. xiv, 443, can scarcely be brought forward as a 
disproof). A name with such a meaning bears a priori the stamp of a 
later explanation, the result of reflexion. Analogous cases of the same 
free treatment and ingenious recoinage of names are numerous. So 
among the Assyrians, Ansar became the "health-bringing" god Ashur, 
"rich in blessing." Similarly the Kanaanites were pleased to connect 
with flJll a quite different meaning from that which originally belonged 
to the word Dagan. Many other examples might be given. Moreover, 
the change of the name 1JT into T^\TV_ was necessary for the reason that 
in*, together with the ♦, the proper bearer of the meaning, was no longer 
intelligible, and hence not appropriate as the name of the Hebrew 

Prof. Fkiedk. Delitzsch and the Name n\T- 133 

■national God. The question when this modification took place lies be- 
yond the province of this note; only attention is called in passing to line 
18 of the Mesha inscriptions, where the quadriliteral fTWT appears. 

C. in* (fl*. *), its diffusion and origin. 

The original form of the divine name, 111*, was certainly common to 
the Hebrews with the Philistines, probably with the Kanaanites in gen- 
eral. It was exactly in contra-distinction to the Jahu of these other 
peoples that the specifically Hebrew recoinage of the name into HliT 
took place. The Kanaanite name for God, Jab, or Jahu, had, moreover, 
like most of the other Kanaanite names of gods, its roots in the Baby- 
lonian pantheon, corresponding to the surname Ja-u of the god Ilu, the 
chief god of the oldest Babylonian system. 

1. As surely as flltT is specifically Hebrew in its origin, the result 
of a specifically Hebrew recoinage, so surely was 1JT not Hebrew in its 
origin. (This does not, of course, exclude the possibility that 'IJT, even 
without any deepening of its meaning, could very well have been the 
-national God of the Hebrews. ) If 1JT was from the very outset a na- 
tional Hebrew name it must remain intelligible, and did not need to be 
remodeled. It was changed, because for the thinkers of the people of 
Israel no comprehensible meaning was attached to it — a plain proof of 
the foreign origin of the name Jahve. 

2. It can now scarcely be denied that not alone the Hebrews, but 
also other Semitic nations worshipped the God Jahve. Certainly from the 
fact that, according to Num. xxiv, Balaam served Jahve as well as Baal 
no conclusion can be drawn as to the worship of Jahve among the Syr- 
ians. So also the Ammonite name n*5'lt3> Neh. n. 10, can, if necessary, 
like the Hamathensian names mentioned above, be referred to borrow- 
ing. Even the Phoenician proper names '"DP, Afidaio?, "?X*, which 
are most naturally explained as JTIU^, servant of Jahve, and *7itY, 
Jahve is God (cf. on these names Baudissin 323 s., and elsewhere), could, 
perhaps, so far as they stand alone, be disregarded as indications of 
Phcenecian worship of Jahve. On the other hand several names of 
of Philistine kings mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions show that 
among the Philistines the God Jahu, Jah, was not only worshipped, but 
even took quite a prominent place : e. g. Mitinti, king of Asdod (Sanh, 
ii. 51), Sidga, king of Askalon (Sanh. n, 58), Padi, king of Ekron (Sanh. 
ii. 70), names undoubtedly equivalent to the Hebrew flTlfllD. n*p*11fi 
r? T '"T3 (see also KAT, 71, ss). To affirm borrowing in all these cases, and 
.and to assume that the Philistines, the hereditary enemies of the He- 

134 The Hebrew Student. 

brews, should in the very names of their kings have done* homage to the- 
Hebrew national God seeme to me impossible. If this be so, if the 
Philistines really knew the God Jahu, then Hittite proper names like 
JT"VlK, ii. S, xi. 3, if., as also all the above mentioned HamathensiaD, Phce- 
p.ecian and Ammonite proper names can not be explained in so sweeping 
a manner as simple borrowing. With at least as much right can all 
these names (cf also the name of a north Arabian king JaMlu, Asarh. in. 
20, KAT. 5, note, erroneously called "king of Damascus") be regarded 
as unanimous witnesses for Jahu, Jah, as universal Kanaanite God ; so> 
that, besides the grounds already given, the Hebrew differential change 
to i*Y)iT would have been made in purposeful distinction to the Kanaan- 
itish ViT. 


3. If, moreover, the Hebrew Jahu was certainly Philistine also, 
and most probably common to the Kanaanites in general, then result* 
not merely a new argument against the derivation from mil, iTJT "be," 
since that root is exclusively Aramaic Hebrew, and not Kanaanitish, but, 
furthermore, Babylon, the home of all, or almost all the other Gods of 
the Kanaanitish pantheon, would be at once suggested as the name of 
Jahu also. And this supposition is confirmed on a closer examination 
of the cuneiform inscriptions. 

4. The non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia designated God a» 
IHngir (Sumer. dimmer), i. e. "mighty judge," and especially and pe- 
culiarly Ha (Hi) and i. From the monuments examples- can now be 
given of i in the meaning "God", for the character which, according to> 
S* i. 13-16, bears the name i or (with Assyrian nominative ending) 
ia-u from its specially characteristic non-Semitic sound value i (this 
was so well known that it did not even need to be given, as is regularly 
the case, in the left hand column), i (phonetically written) and Hi (writ- 
ten with the other sign i or Hi, which, as designation of God, "the all- 
highest," is also frequently doubled) interchange without distinction in 
tile same words as names of God. i and Hi both originally mean "ex- 
alted" and then "God" (cf. also for the latter YK 34 col. ii, 52), but, 
further than this, in the oldest Babylonian-Semitic system of mythology 
they also designated the highest God. The God Iln, frequently men- 
tioned in the oldest as well as the latest Babylonian texts, stood original- 
ly, according to ii. R 48, 28 a, b, at the head of the oldest Babylonian- 
Semitic pantheon of which we have any evidence in the cuneiform in- 
scriptions, and it can be but a mere chance that Ja-u, although it has 
been shown to be the Babylonian-Semitic name of the God sign i, has 

Prof. Friede. Delitzsch and the Name nW- 135 

not yet been shown to be the Babylonian-Semitic name of God himself. 
(The doubts with reference to the equivalence of the Assyrian Ja-u and 
the Hebrew 1iT. first assumed by Schrader, which I expressed in a note 
in Baudissin's Stvdien zur semitischen Religionsgesckichte, i. 226 s, I 
now retract in view of the above proved equivalence of i, jau and Hi, 
God, an equivalence at that time unknown.) While this oldest and high- 
est God of the Semitic Babylonians, ilu or Ja-u, was gradually crowded 
ont [in Babylon itself] by other divinities, among the Kanaanites he at- 
tained to a more important, and among the Hebrews to the most important 
position. From a grammatical point of view, according to the preceding, 
1»T OSV) connects itself with the other remnants of the Semitic nominative 


ending in u retained in Hebrew, like n^'MlD, ^NIJS ("ty? 1J3' Num. 
xxiv. 3, 15.) 

This note appears to me so valuable that I have preferred to trans- 
late it just as it stands, adding my own remarks and criticisms separately. 

A. With reference to the popular name of God, 1JT or IT, only the 
latter form occurs as an independent word, the former being confined to 
composition. JT as an independent word occurs in Ex. xv. 2, xvn. 16, 
Isaiah xii. 2, xxvi. 4, xxxvm. 11, and about 50 times in the Psalms, 
especially the later ones, where it is often combined with fo^tl- The 
two passages in which it occurs in Exodus, being, at least in their essen- 
tial parts, among the oldest in that book, offer strong evidence for a use 
of Jah as a name of God at an early period. It is a case where the non- 
appearance of the form is merely negative, its appearance, on the other 
hand, positive evidence. It cannot be supposed that a late copyist 
or reviser of an old song would change the name of God there occur- 
ring, if in his own day that name were in common use among the 
priests and learned men, and substitute for it one either antiquated 
or in use only among the common people ; whereas the oppos'te 
is very likely. Hence in these two passages the occurrence of JT 
may be regarded as a positive proof of a use of that form at the period of 
their composition. There are two passages in our ordinary Hebrew text 
where JTiJT JT occur in combination, namely Isaiah xn. 2, and xxvi. 4. 
In both passages several codices omit JT, and similarly the lxx, Peshito 
and other ancient versions translate only one of the two words. There 
are, furthermore, two passages in the Psalms (lxviii. 5, and oxvin. 14) 
where some manuscripts have the same double form, fflfV ?T. The 
meaning of this phenomenon seems to be that ffliT has been substituted 
for an original IT, but that in some MSS. the substitution has gone no 

136 The Hebrew Student. 

further than the insertion of the form to be substituted. This is rendered 
the more manifest from the fact that Isaiah xn. 2, and Ps. cxviii. 14, are 
taken from Ex. xv. 2. Of the other passages in which Jah occurs, with 
the exception of those where it forms part of the formula fT"*! 1 ^!!, no 
more can be said than that they seem to testify to the continued, perhaps 
the popular use of that name down to a late date in Jewish history. The 
formula tV^b^T}, on the other hand, by the very fact of being a solemn, 
often-recurring formula containing a different name of God from that 
regularly in use in the sacred books, seems likely to be either ancient or 
of foreign origin, and in spite of the similarity noticed by some heathen 
writers between this cry of praise and those used in the worship of Dion- 
ysos (Adonis and Iaoo), I imagine that most critics taking into con- 
sideration the whole development of Jehovah worship, would not hesi- 
tate to decide in favor of the former hypothesis. 

All that is claimed for the above argument from the use of TV is this: 
JT was used as a name of the deity at an early period, and continued to 
be so used down to the time of the composition of the latest Psalms. We 
have evidence that in four cases ffifT, the name in regular use among 
the priests and scribes, has been substituted for an original TV-, which is 
strong presumptive evidence of similar substitution in other cases. In 
answer to the questions, why does no trace appear of the nominative 
form IP!' in independent use ? and why in such an old passage as Exodus 
xvn. 16 has TV once been changed to mil* and once allowed to remain 
unchanged ? I would reply, it was precisely the old nominative form 
1JT which lent itself most readily to the change. The change of TV to 
ni!T involved the addition of a syllable, and hence could not always be 
made, that of W to HliT, on the other hand, was permissible in all 
cases. So in Ex. xvn. 16 the one form has been changed (provided the 
second part of the verse be as old as the first), and the other left un- 
changed. As to a distinction between the simple ?T and the same with 
nominative ending, IH', judging from the analogy of other words, and 
from the use of those two forms in proper names, none seems to have 
existed among the Hebrews at any time to which we are able to go back. 

The argument to be drawn from the independent use of FT is, as 
will be seen from the above, by no means a conclusive one; on the other 
hand the argument from the use of H* and IIT in proper names presented 
by Prof. Delitzsch seems to me conclusive. We have a large number of 
proper names containing some name of God, or the name of some God, 

Prof. Friedr. Delitztch and the Name ffifV- 137 

in composition, and with one single exception (DTJHN * i Kings iv. 6, 
D"HK i Kings xn. 18, DTlH n Ohron. x. 12) those names are not con- 
tracted, and in that one exception the contraction is in no way to be com- 
pared with the heretofore supposed contraction of HlIT to fl or ♦. 

2. As to the essential element in the form M', it is hard to say 
whether Prof. Delitzsch is altogether justified in concluding that there 
was a consciousness in the Hebrew language of ♦ as the essential part. 
Certainly the contraction to V at the beginning of proper names is com- 
mon enough, and to * at the end scarcely uncommon. On the other 
hand a contraction to 1H from lfl* is assumed by Olshausen in the form 
JflDB'ln i Chr. in. 18. This is founded upon the analogy of the form 
J?£'in, Num. xin. 8 and elsewhere, which is supposed to be contracted 
from JftfHiT ; but Num. xin. 16, where it is stated that Moses changed 
Hoshea's name to Jehoshua, certainly seems to show a consciousness in 
the language of the existence in the longer form of an element which is 
lacking in the shorter. For the contraction to fl at the end of a name 
we have the form !"D'P, Ju. xvn. 5, which is a disputed case ; and ilflflO 
Ez. x. 33, where the contraction seems to be universally admitted. 

B. 2. The explanation adopted by Prof. Schrader goes one step 
further than is here indicated in assuming the original identity of the two 
roots iTH and (TIT, and hence explaining the form HliT as meaning 
"life-giving." Movers in his Die Phonizier, in order to account for kx 
in the cry lanxos of the Phceneclans in fhe worship of law, or Adonis, 
had already connected the form law with H*n. The grammatical diffi- 
culties in the way of identifying the two roots would be greater than has 
been hitherto supposed should we adopt Prof. Delitzsch's plausible sug- 
gestion (p. 166) that mn is a development of the pronoun K1H some- 
what after the manner of the ^Ethiopic use, where the verb "have" is 
formed by the preposition (ba) with the pronoun (as for example in the 
3d person singular: (bo) in him), and, nevertheless, in construction is fol- 

*Note.— Compare the forms DTJ^K, Adonis is exalted, D"VliT, Jehovah is exalted, D13X, 
ab (father) is exalted; PI'S?, my God is Jehovah, aS'^X, my God is ab (father), WV3K, my father 
is Jehovah; KliT^K, my T God is He, NirrSX, my father is He; 3KV, Sx'V, ^K'SK, ete. A com- 
parison of these forms seems to me to show that 3K began to be used independently in Hebrew 
as a designation of God, and that it was so used, for example, in the name E"OK. The use of 
TW, 'IE? and n ,l 7;> for God will show that there is certainly uo improbability in such a use of 
3N. It seems to me that we have in these and other names evidence of an uncertain and varied 
nomenclature for God, for which was finally substituted irp or ni!T. The names ^jnEW (i Chr. 
viii. 33) JH ,l 7,J,'3 (i Chr. xiv. 7) aud others seem to show a use of 4^3 (Baal) in the sense of God 
among the Hebrews. A comparison of the names yiCO^D (I S. xiv. 49) with j?lEn!T and JW^K, 
as also the forms DloSa, "I^D'SK, "lSo'^S and others, suggests the use of -|D in the same man- 
ner as a name of God, and manifestly Melekh (king) is then the same as Moloch. 

138 The Hebkew Student. 

lowed by an accusative as though a regular verb form. The principal 
difficulty in the derivation proposed by Prof. Schrader, however, is of 
quite a different character. If, as 1 think, Prof. Delitzsch has succeeded 
in proving that the original form of the divine name was 1!T, from which 
ni»T was formed as an artificial, or as an inspired result of reflection and 
speculation, we must allow that the men who produced it knew what it 
meant, and receive their explanation of it as given in Ex. in. 14. This 
precludes alike the possibility of a causative, and the combination, so far 
as this word is concerned, of the two roots fTn and JTfT 

B. 3. If Prof. Delitzsch's theory be accepted, the first step towards 
determining when IfT was changed to HUT is to determine when in* 
became the highest and peculiar name of God among the Hebrews. 
Toward the solution of this question I can only offer a few suggestions drawn 
chiefly from a consideration of Bible proper names. The regular and 
most ancient Babylonish-Semitic designation of God known to us was Ilu. 
According to the testimony of the Bible (Ex. vi. 3) bit was also the name 
of God in common or regular use among the ancient Hebrews. The 
same testimony is borne by the national name * ^lOtJ'', which, it must 
be remembered, is properly the name of the ten tribes, and does not in- 
clude Judah. An examination of Biblical proper names reveals this fact 
(already noticed by Ewald and other critics), that before the time of 
David the use of JT or liT in proper names is rare. With his reign 
that use becomes common, and, beginning with his great-grandson, Abi- 
jah, almost every royal name shows the name of Jehovah in composition 
(compare also Solomon's second name Jedadiah, II. S. xn.25). In the 
northern kingdom, or Israel, on the other hand, no king's name contains 
Jehovah in composition until more than half a century later, the first 
king who bears the name being Ahaziah, the son of Ahab. The fact 
that the introduction of the name in* into common use was contemporary 
with the ascendency acquired by the tribe of Judah suggests that in* was 
the name in common use in that tribe in distinction from the "?K of 
Israel. This and the appearance of the form "?{< in ^JpB" further sug- 
gest the question, is the name 1JT a part of miiT ? I suppose no one 

* Compare with this the possibly older form plET, from the same root, but not compounded 
with the divine name. tt"\V>] is Aramaic in its formation (cf. also the name of the tribe [173!)- 
The ending J1, which in later Aramaic is a diminutive, was originally equivalent to the Hebrew 
t'l, old-Semitic, an. The Aramaic makes no distinction between & and t!/. As one example 
among many to show the tendency to confuse the two letters in Hebrew cf. the famous 
nHatf and 7173^. 

Peof. Fbiedr. Delitzsch and the Name HIiT- 13£ 

would think of maintaining a real scientific value for the etymology sug- 
gested in Gen. xxiv.33, and xlix.8, but at the same time the fact which 
this etymology seems to show, that no consciousness of a connection be- 
tween 1JT and mifT existed in the language, is a very strong, perhaps 
an insuperable objection to this etymology. I do not more, therefore, 
than put it forward as a question. 

If we analyze the Bible record, omitting for the moment the genea- 
logical tables in I Chron., we find before the time of Moses the name 
Jehovah only once in composition in the form "D3i*, Ex. VI -20, which 
is very seriously questioned; contemporary with Moses once, in the form 
JftCliT, with which compare the shorter form already mentioned; in the 
Book of Joshua probably once in the form H2J, vn. 1, for which I Chr- 
ii.6 has '-Of; in Judges in the forms B>'«V, vi.ll, DHV, ix.5, IfT^S 
xvii. 1, where the composition with 1JT is by many denied, and Jfijin*, 
xviii. 30, a passage of unquestionably late date; in I Sam., before the 
reign of David, in the forms ^Ki* and rTOK, vni.2, JADi*, xin.3, fTfTNt 
xiv. 3, il'VU^ and 2KV, xxvi.6, the last two belonging, according to 
I Chron. 11:6, to the immediate family of David, sister and sister's son. 
On the other hand, during this whole period, when proper names con- 
taining in* in composition are so rare, those containing *?N are common. 
Beginning with David's time, names compounded with liT become very 

"With many, probably most, critics of the present day, I deny the 
value of the lists of names in I Chron. for the purposes of such a study as 
this, but at the same time I think a comparison of, for example, chaps. 11 
and 111 will show that they are far from contradicting what has just been 

In connection with the above facts it is at least interesting to observe 
that Samuel, the name with which was connected the great religious and 
national revival of Israel, is compounded with the name El of God. 
Elijah, the great enemy of Baal worship in the time of Ahab, means 
"My God is Jehovah." Before the time of Elijah no king's name in 
Israel is compounded with IT, after him there are very few that are not. 

Bishop Colenso, in a note to the 5th volume of his work on the 
Pentateuch, has brought together some interesting proper names con- 
taining Baal in composition ; the judge ^J£3"}*i Ju. vi. 32 ; king ^32'K. 

* If tbe form JVM in I Chron. iv.18, is to be explained with most critics as containing: jy in 
composition, and not, as I suspect, as a t'emininized foreign word, we have a foreigner bearing a 
Hebrew holy name, in which case the TV is manifestly a translation. This, if so, would suggest 
what in any case I believe to be the fact that in these lists we have a number of similar trans- 
lations into IT of other divine names. 

140 The Hebrew Student. 

the son of Saul, I Chron. vm.33, called the DEO't^P II S. n.8; 3HD 
^3 the son of Jonathan, I Ohron. vm.34, called JIB^M II S. iv.4; 
y£?$2 a son of Dsmd* I Ohron. xiv.7, called ^T"?K in II S. v. 16; 
iT^J/S a follower of David, I Chron. xn.5; pfl "7J73 an officer of David, 
I Ohron. xxvn.28; also a place called the house of DH3 ^3 in Ju. 
ix.4, and in the 46th verse the house of J1H3 bit. To these I would 
add the name OT.J1K, David's tax-gatherer, I K. vi. 6 ; and IW^D 
a son of Saul, I S. xiv.49, which, comparing it with JPlKPliT and }W?N. 
I should think might, as above suggested, contain Moloch in composition. 
With these I would further compare the change from D'p^N to D'p'ilT 
in II Chron. xxxiv.4, and the above mentioned Ja-u-bi-i'-di and I-lu-bi-i'di. 
I do not think that the appearance of Baal, Adonis, or Moloch in proper 
names necessarily involves idolatry. Indeed we see the word which 
among the Kanaanites meant the god Adonis (cf. plX~P"TN king of Je- 
rusalem, Josh, x.l) used constantly, and finally exclusively by the Jews 
to designate God.* These names were rather various ways of naming 
the divinity, which might and did lead to idolatry, but were in them- 
selves of necessity idolatrous. This fact, if fact it be, will show the 
necessity to the Hebrew of a peculiar name of God not common to them 
with the neighboring peoples. A consideration of the similar formation 
of proper names compounded with various divine names seems me to 
furnish further support to the above view; cf. "I^TTi"! 1VJ7V, "li'^K ; 

prr tya, pn *?x; "arm nwnwi "jtaN, •wsk, irra* etc. 

Prof. Delitzsch suggests the Moab-stone as a possible clue to the de- 
termination of the time of the change of liT into mil'. I do not think the 
form ffiiT in the 18th line of that inscription can be regarded as proved 
for the purposes of such an argument. That line reads DnClBHpWliTirt 
and has been translated "vessels of Jehovah, and I dedicated, and these" 
etc. The syntax is certainly halting, moreover the gaps in the immediate 
neighborhood of the letters in question, render it too uncertain how we 
must divide those letters. It would be interesting to see this part of the 
inscription re deciphered with reference to the possibility of the forms 
,T or liT. 

* A difficulty has been recognized in the form 'JIX, which is the Massoretic punctuation for 
the name of God, in distinction from the plural 'JIN, my lords, and 'J1K, my lord; and various 
explanations of the peculiarity have been offered. It certainly looks like nothing else than an 
intentional differentiation to distinguish the name of God. Was that differentiation made direct_ 
ly from 'JIX, that the God of the Hebrew might not be named by the same name as a heathen 
deity? or was the name "J1S first pluralized, somewhat after the analogy of D'ilSs ? 

Pkof. Friede. Delitzsch and the Name HliT- 141 

C. 2. With reference to the diffusion of the name liT, Baudissin in 
his Stvdien offers an elaborate argument of probability to show that the 
law of the Abraxas gems was derived not from Phoenician but from 
Hebrew sources. If it be admitted, which I suppose all now must admit, 
that the cuneiform inscriptions show us Jahu as a name of God where 
borrowing from the Hebrew was out of question, this argument of pro- 
babilities turns against its author to prove that law was really Phoe- 
nician. Movers' argument, which was adopted by Colenso, that the 
Hebrews borrowed the name from the Phoenicians, is equally unten- 
able. Both had it from the same source. The name law seems in 
course of time to have dropped out of use among the Phoenicians, 
until eventually it became, as might readily happen with such a half- 
forgotten, and mysteriously unintelligible name, the secret, or essen- 
tial name of Adonis. Hence its use as a charm in the Abraxas gems. 
This connection of law with ASwvn deserves to be compared with 
the connetion of nW with ''TlH, which finally led to the substitution 
of the latter for the former, or essential name of the deity, in common 
use among the Jews. 

0. 4. Prof. Delitzsch's argument with reference to the meaning 
of the name 1JT is certainly exceedingly ingenious and plausible, but, 
as he himself acknowledges, a link is still missing, and in view of 
former developments in the field of Assyriology it would be advisable 
to allow this hypothesis to wait for confirmation. 

In the same paragraph Prof. Delitzsch has spoken of the god Ilu. 
He allows and authorizes me to print the following statement from 
himself : ' 'Since I have seen that in the texts of the later Babylonian 
kings, like Nebuchadnezzar, a god named El never appears, but the 
phrase which was formerly read Bel El Marduk, should instead 
be read bel ilasi Marduk, i. e. Merodach, the lord of gods, I no 
longer maintain my (hitherto almost universal) explanation of II 
R. xlviii.28." The passage referred to occurs in a dictionary. 
In the left hand column appear the non-Semitic, and in the right the 
Semitic words. In 28 stands in the Semitic column the regular sign 
for God. In the succeeding lines appear names of various gods pre- 
ceded by the sign for God just mentioned the reading of which 
is Ilu. Connecting this with the falsely explained later texts above 
mentioned, it was supposed that we here had a god Ilu placed at the 
head of the pantheon. Eu appears as a general name of divinity, and 
the sign which is read ilu also appears as the regular determinative 

142 The Hebrew Student. 

placed before the name of any god. Hence it is most natural here to 
suppose that the lexicographer in commencing the category gods placed 
at the head of the list the general name of divinity, or the symbol of 
divinity which must always be prefixed to divine names, in favor of 
which interpretation a number of analogous passages can be presented. 

Prof. Delitzsch's argument in the last section may then be used 
to show that Ja-u, like Ilu, meant God, rather than a particular god. 

The name Jaou which M. Halevy (cf. e. g. Revue Archeologique 
for July) gives to a Babylonian divinity, has not been noticed in this 
discussion, because I do not believe that any such name really occurs. 
The name is to be read Ea ("the life-giving god of knowledge"), and 
Ea can not be brought into connection with Jah. 


Br Rev. Nathaniel West, 

Morristown, New Jersey. 

The typographical and mechanical execution of the work is worthy 
of all praise. The volume is a splendid one, of 538 octavo pages, in 
large Roman characters, and affectionately dedicated to Professor C. J. 
Riggenbach, colleague of the author in the same university. It consists 
of an Introduction and two main Divisions. The Sections of the Intro- 
duction are, nine in number, as follows : 1. Biblical Prophecy. 2. The 
Phenomena, analagous to Biblical Prophecy, in the field of Heathen- 
dom. 3. The Kingdom of God as the content of Biblical Prophecy. 4. 
The Time-Historical character of Biblical Prophecy. 5. The Type in the 
development of the Kingdom of God. 6. The analogous Phenomena 
in Heathendom. 7. The Fulfilment in general. 8. The Fulfilment in 
the New Testament. 9. The Treatment of the subject in Christian The- 

* "The Old Testament Prophecy of the Completion of the Kingdom of God presented in its 
historical Development, by C. V. Orelli, Doctor of Philosophy, Licentiate and Ordinary Profes- 
sor of Theology in Basel. Vienna, 1882 - " 

Die a lttestamentliche Weissagung von der Vollendung des Gottesreiches in ihrer geschicht- 
lichen Entwickelung , dargestellt, von C. V. Orelli, Dr. Phil, und O. Professor der Theologie in 
Basel. Wien, 1882.